Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds scope beyond that: values are gross monthly, exclude Familienzuschlag and Zulagen, and each figure carries a source and as-of date — meaningful context about what the data does and does not represent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and followed by the qualifiers (brutto, ohne Zusatzleistungen) and provenance. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description communicates what the returned figure represents and its caveats. Adding a hint about the response shape or the source/Stand format would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the 'land' parameter already documents slug/name/abbreviation forms and the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (Anwärtergrundbetrag im Referendariat für Lehramt A 13) and the granularity of the result (je Bundesland mit Quelle und Stand). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pension_berechnen or regeln_bundesland, though it never names or contrasts them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is a lookup for trainee base pay, and the schema alone says to omit 'land' for all states. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as pension_berechnen.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.